Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus

What the science says...

Venus very likely underwent a runaway or ‘moist’ greenhouse phase earlier in its history, and today is kept hot by a dense CO2 atmosphere.

Climate Myth...

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effectVenus is not hot because of a runaway greenhouse.

In keeping with my recent theme of discussing planetary climate, I am revisiting a claim last year made by Steven Goddard at WUWT (here and here, and echoed by him again recently) that “the [runaway greenhouse] theory is beyond absurd,” and that it is pressure, not the greenhouse effect that keeps Venus hot. My focus in this post is not on his alternative theory (discussed here), but to discuss Venus and the runaway greenhouse in general, as a matter of interest and as an educational opportunity. In keeping my skepticism fair, I’d also like to address claims (sometimes thrown out by Jim Hansen in passing by) that burning all the coal, tars, and oil could conceivably initiate a runaway on Earth.

It is worth noting that the term runaway greenhouse refers to a specific process when discussed by planetary scientists, and simply having a very hot, high-CO2 atmosphere is not it. It is best thought of as a process that may have happened in Venus’ past (or a large number of exo-planets being discovered close enough to their host star) rather than a circumstance it is currently in.

A Tutorial of Present-Day Venus

Venus’ orbit is approximately 70% closer to the sun, which means it receives about 1/0.72 ~ 2 times more solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere than Earth. Venus also has a very high albedo which ends up over-compensating for the distance to the sun, so the absorbed solar energy by Venus is less than that for Earth. The high albedo can be attributed to a host of gaseous sulfur species, along with what water there is, which provide fodder for several globally encircling sulfuric acid (H2SO4) cloud decks. SO2 and H2O are the gaseous precursor of the clouds particles; the lower clouds are formed by condensation of H2SO4 vapor, with SO2 created by photochemistry in the upper clouds. Venus’ atmosphere also has a pressure of ~92 bars, nearly equivalent to what you’d feel swimming under a kilometer of ocean. The dense atmosphere could keep the albedo well above Earth’s even without clouds due to the high Rayleigh scattering (the effect of clouds on Venus and how they could change in time is discussed in Bullock and Grinspoon, 2001). Less than 10% of the incident solar radiation reaches the surface.

Observations of the vapor content in the Venusian atmosphere show an extremely high heavy to light isotopic ratio (D/H) and is best interpreted as a preferential light hydrogen escape to space, while deuterium escapes less rapidly. A lower limit of at least 100 times its current water content in the past can be inferred (e.g. Selsis et al. 2007 and references therein).

The greenhouse effect on Venus is primarily caused by CO2, although water vapor and SO2 are extremely important as well. This makes Venus very opaque throughout the spectrum (figure 1a), and since most of the radiation that makes its way out to space comes from only the very topmost parts of the atmosphere, it can look as cold as Mars from IR imagery. In reality, Venus is even hotter than the dayside of Mercury, at an uncomfortable 735 K (or ~860 F). Like Earth, Venusian clouds also generate a greenhouse effect, although they are not as good infrared absorbers/emitters as water clouds. However, the concentrated sulfuric acid droplets can scatter infrared back to the surface, generating an alternative form of the greenhouse effect that way. In the dense Venusian CO2 atmosphere, pressure broadening from collisions and the presence of a large number of absorption features unimportant on modern Earth can come into play (figure 1b), which means quick and dirty attempts by Goddard to extrapolate the logarithmic dependence between CO2 and radiative forcing make little sense. The typical Myhre et al (1998) equation which suggests every doubling of CO2 reduces the outgoing flux at the tropopause by ~4 W/m2, although even for CO2 concentration typical of post-snowball Earth states this can be substantially enhanced. Figure 1b also shows that CO2is not saturated, as some skeptics have claimed.

Figure 1: a) Radiant spectra for the terrestrial planets. Courtesy of David Grisp (Jet Propulsion Laboratory/CIT), from lecture "Understanding the Remote-Sensing Signatures of Life in Disk-averaged Planetary Spectra: 2" b) Absorption properties for CO2. The horizontal lines represent the absorption coefficient above which the atmosphere is strongly absorbing. The green (orange) rectangle shows that portion of the spectrum where the atmosphere is optically thick for 300 (1200) ppm. From Pierrehumbert (2011)

How to get a Runaway?

To get a true runaway greenhouse, you need a conspiracy of solar radiation and the availability of some greenhouse gas in equilibrium with a surface reservoir (whose concentration increases with temperature by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation). For Earth, or Venus in a runaway greenhouse phase, the condensable substance of interest is water— although one can generalize to other atmospheric agents as well.

The familiar water vapor feedback can be illustrated in Figure 2, whereby an increase in surface temperature increases the water vapor content, which in turn results in increased atmospheric opacity and greenhouse effect. In a plot of outgoing radiation vs. temperature, this would result in less sensitive change in outgoing flux for a given temperature change (i.e., the outgoing radiation is more linear than one would expect from the σT4 blackbody-relation).

Figure 2: Graph of the OLR vs. T for different values of the CO2 content and relative humidity. For a fixed RH, the specific humidity increases with temperature. The horizontal lines are the absorbed shortwave radiation, which can be increased from 260-300 W m-2. The water vapor feedback manifests itself as the temperature difference between b’-b and a’-a, since water vapor feedback linearizes the OLR curve. Eventually the OLR asymptotes at the Komabayashi-Ingersoll limit. Adopted from Pierrehumbert (2002)

One can imagine an extreme case in which the water vapor feedback becomes sufficiently effective, so that eventually the outgoing radiation is decoupled from surface temperature, and asymptotes into a horizontal line (sometimes called the “Komabayashi-Ingersoll” limit following the work of the authors in the 1960’s, although Nakajima et al (1992) expanded upon this limiting OLR in terms of tropospheric and stratospheric limitations). In order to sustain the runaway, one requires a sufficient supply of absorbed solar radiation, as this prevents the system from reaching radiative equilibrium. Once the absorbed radiation exceeds the limiting outgoing radiation, then a runaway greenhouse ensues and the radiation to space does not increase until the oceans are depleted, or perhaps the planet begins to get hot enough to radiate in near visible wavelengths.

Figure 3: Qualitative schematic of how the ocean reservoir is depleted in a runaway. From Ch. 4 of R.T. Pierrehumbert’s Principles of Planetary Climate

On present-day Earth, a “cold trap” limits significant amounts of water vapor from reaching the high atmosphere, so its fate is ultimately to condense and precipitate out. In a runaway scenario, this “cold trap” is broken and the atmosphere is moist even into the stratosphere. This allows energetic UV radiation to break up H2O and allow for significant hydrogen loss to space, which explains the loss of water over time on Venus. An intermediate case is the “moist greenhouse” (Kasting 1988) in which liquid water can remain on the surface, but the stratosphere is still wet so one can lose large quantities of water that way (note Venus may never actually encountered a true runaway, there is still debate over this). Kasting (1988) explored the nature of the runaway /moist greenhouse, and later in 1993 applied this to understanding habitable zones around main-sequence stars. He found that a planet with a vapor atmosphere can lose no more than ~310 W/m2, which corresponds to 140% of the modern solar constant (note the albedo of a dense H2O atmosphere is higher than the modern), or about 110% of the modern value for the moist greenhouse.

Earth and the Runaway: Past and Future

Because Earth is well under the absorbed solar radiation threshold for a runaway, water is in a regime where it condenses rather than accumulating indefinitely in the atmosphere. The opposite is true for CO2, which builds up indefinitely unless checked by silicate weathering or ocean/biosphere removal processes. In fact, a generalization to the runaway threshold thinking is when the solar radiation is so low, so that CO2 condenses out rather than building up in the atmosphere, as would be the case for very cold Mars-like planets. Note the traditional runaway greenhouse threshold is largely independent of CO2 (figure 2 & 4; also see Kasting 1988), since the IR opacity is swamped by the water vapor effect. This makes it very difficult to justify concerns over an anthropogenic-induced runaway.

Figure 4: The H2O–CO2 greenhouse. The plot shows the surface temperature as a function of radiated heat for different amounts of atmospheric CO2 (after Abe 1993). The albedo is the fraction of sunlight that is not absorbed (the appropriate albedo to use is the Bond albedo, which refers to all sunlight visible and invisible). Modern Earth has an albedo of 30%. Net insolations for Earth and Venus ca. 4.5 Ga (after the Sun reached the main sequence) are shown at 30% and 40% albedo. Earth entered the runaway greenhouse state only ephemerally after big impacts that generated big pulses of geothermal heat. For example, after the Moon-forming impact the atmosphere would have been in a runaway greenhouse state for ∼2 million years, during which the heat flow would have made up the difference between net insolation and the runaway greenhouse limit. A plausible trajectory takes Earth from ∼100 bars of CO2 and 40% albedo down to 0.1–1 bar and 30% albedo, at which point the oceans ice over and albedo jumps. Note that CO2 does not by itself cause a runaway. Also note that Venus would enter the runaway state when its albedo dropped below 35%. Se e Zahnle et al 2007

This immunity to a runaway will not be the case in the long-term. In about a billion years, the sun will brighten enough to push us into a state where hydrogen is lost much more rapidly, and a true runaway greenhouse occurs in several billion years from now, with the large caveat that clouds could increase the albedo and delay this process.

Interesting, some (e.g.. Zahnle et al 2007) have argued that Earth may have been in a transient runaway greenhouse phase within the first few million years, with geothermal heat and the heat flow from the moon-forming impact making up for the difference between the net solar insolation and the runaway greenhouse threshold, although this would last for only a brief period of time. Because the runaway threshold also represents a maximum heat loss term, it means the planet would take many millions of years to cool off following such magma ocean & steam atmosphere events of the early Hadean, much slower than a no-atmosphere case (figure 5).

Figure 5: Radiative cooling rates from a steam atmosphere over a magma ocean. The radiated heat is equal to the sum of absorbed sunlight (net insolation) and geothermal heat flow. The plot shows the surface temperature as a function of radiated heat for different amounts of atmospheric H2O (adapted from Abe et al. 2000). The radiated heat is the sum of absorbed sunlight (net insolation) and geothermal heat flow. The different curves are labeled by the amount of H2O in the atmosphere (in bars). The runaway greenhouse threshold is indicated. This is the maximum rate that a steam atmosphere can radiate if condensed water is present. If at least 30 bars of water are present (a tenth of an ocean), the runaway greenhouse threshold applies even over a magma ocean. Note that the radiative cooling rate is always much smaller than the σT4 of a planet without an atmosphere

Conclusions

Venus likely underwent a runaway or “moist greenhouse” phase associated with rapid water loss and very high temperatures. Once water is gone, silicate weathering reactions that draw down CO2 from the atmosphere are insignificant, and CO2 can then build up to very high values. Today, a dense CO2 atmosphere keeps Venus extremely hot.

This statement is a nonsense. If heat in the gas (actually it is more accurate to talk about the 'internal energy' of the gas) doesn't change, temperature cannot change. Because temperature is the direct measurement of some of that internal energy.

The following article on Wiki has a good discussion of the Thermodynamic (or Kinetic) definition of Temperature.

The eqution relating the internal energy of a gas, actually the kinetic energy of translation of the molecules in the gas, is as follows:

E = 3/2 kBTk

where:

E is the mean kinetic energy of a molecule in the gas, in Joules

kB = 1.3806504(24)×10−23 J/K is the Boltzmann constant

Tk is the kinetic temperature in kelvins (K)

Temperature is directly proportional to the internal energy of the molecules.

Temperature is the measurement of their internal energy.

So saying heat doesn't change but temperature does is nonsensical. Temperature is the measurement of 'heat'.

So if the amount of heat doesn't change, temperature cannot change, by definition.If the amount of heat does change, temperature must change, by definition.

Next, this comment.

"The equation states that product of pressure and volume is a constant for a given mass of confined gas as long as the temperature is constant.

So, as long as T is constant and the gas is confined (V is constant), then, yeah.

For the rest of us, PV = nRT"

Mike if the temperature is constant (T is unchanged), then the internal energy hasn't changed. If the mass is constant (n is unchanged) then nRT is constant. So PV is constant, whether confined or not.

What can happen when gas parcels are unconfined is that internal energy might change - T changes. Or mass might change - n changes. Without one of those changes PV is still constant.

But when we are talking about bulk parcels of air in the atmosphere, there is very little mixing and it occurs relatively slowly. So any change in n is minimal. And similarly, without mixing into a parcel, convection cannot transfer much heat quickly into a parcel. Coinduction is a very very weak heat transfer mechanism in gases. And in the Troposphere where the air is 'optically thick', radiation is a poor energy transferer. So the assumption of Adiabatic processes is actually quite good. Heat transfer into a parcel is minimal.

So vertically moving parcels of air essentially can't change n, essentially can't change internal energy through heat transfer since things are adiabatic. So nRT is constant so PV is constant.

However, as they move to different altitudes they need to equalise pressure with the surrounding air. And this happens fairly quickly.

So P must change to equilibrate with the surroundings. OK, thats fine, V changes to match so that PV remains constant. But there is a problem. And your first item in your list highlights this:

"1. Parcel moves down and compresses".

The parcel can't compress itself! It has to be compressed by something outside it.

And that something is the surrounding air. Pressure equalisation means that the surrounding air compresses the parcel. PV would remain constant because everything is Adiabatic (see here for a definition of an Adiabatic Process) except that it is not an Isenthalpic Process.

There is energy transfer into the parcel!

This is not as a Heat Transfer - that satisfies the Adiabatic condition - but is an energy transfer into the parcel as work done on it. (See the definition of Work here)

The surrounding air has to perform mechanical work on the parcel to compress it. And this adds energy to the parcel. This then means the internal energy of the parcel has increased. T has increased! So PV can increase.

This is why descending air masses warm up. They are compressed by the surrounding air and this adds energy to them, increasing their temperature.

And the reverse applies to ascending air masses. Pressure equalisation means they have to do work on the surrounding air to expand and match pressures. Sp energy needs to be expended by the parcel to do that work. Since the process is Adiabatic, the only energy source available to supply the energy for this work is the parcels internal energy. So the parcels internal energy drops - it cools.

Lets consider a piston and cylinder with some air inside it. The air and the piston/cylinder are at a constant temperature.

Now I push the piston in, reducing the volume to half. If I do it quickly enough so there is no time for heat transfer between the air and the cylinder/piston then the process is essentially adiabatic.

So what should happen. No heat transfer, no mass transfer, so nRT is constant. So V is halved and P is doubled, and T doen't change surely.

But that isn't what happens. The work needed to compress the piston has to be added in. So the total internal energy of the air increases, T increases so nRT goes up. V is halved, and P increases by more than double! And we now notice that T has increased.

This often confuses people. They see the temperature increase and assume that the act of being more compressed is why T is higher.

It isn't.

T goes up because energy has been added due to the work needed to compress the piston.

There is a reverse case. If we allow the volume to double, P would be cut in half. Now if this expansion had to do work, then internal energy would be expended to do it, P would drop by more than half, and temperature would fall.

However, it is possible to contrive a situation where we can achieve this volume increase essentially without any work being done.

The setup looks like this. A chamber is divided in two by a sliding door. On one side there is air at pressure P and temperature T. On the other side there is a vacuum. Everything is in thermal equilibrium, air and chambers.

Then we very rapidly slide the door away and allow the air to expand into the other chamber. No work needed to be done on the air to allow it to expand.

This is called Joule Expansion and was first demonstrated by James Prescott Joule in 1845 although others had known about it before hand.

There is actually a cooling of the gas that occurs but this is due to a secondary process, not related to the simple picture of PV = nRT we are discussing here. This secondary process is discussed at the end of the Joule Expansion article and also a related one on the Joule-Thompson Effect which is essentially about throttling processes.

Again the cooling seen in a real gas due to the JT Effect isn't intuitive so people can be misled and think that the act of being less compressed is the cause of the cooling. It isn't.

"Yup. Only the sun can change the total heat content of the atmosphere.".

Of course thats true, but it isn't what we are discussing, or the point of my previous comment. We are discussing what can change the heat content of individual parcels of air, not the entire atmosphere. It isn't what changes the total heat content of the atmoisphere thar is at issue, it is the heat content at a smaller scale.

And at that scale there are processes that can change heat content of air parcels, I have described them in my previous comments.

There is a vertical movement of energy whan air rises and falls. Because the energy in an air parcel gets carried with it. So rising air carries haet to a higher altitude. Descending air carries heat to a lower altitude. Then pressure equalisation brings about a redistribution of that heat between the vertically moving air parcel and its surrpindings. And as a concequence, a vertical temperature distribution is created. This article about the Lapse Rate is worth reading. That is what it is all about.

So there is an engine that transports heat up and down until an equilibrium is established where the atmosphere has a vertical temperature profile based on the Lapse Rate for that planet and atmosphere. And if the atmosphere weren't in equalibrium, with one layer too warm or cold compared to other layers, this active pumping engine works to re-establish the profile.

So in the case of Venus, with most incoming solar energy being absorbed in the upper atmosphere, atmospheric mixing generates a substantial vertical temperature difference. And in the case of the Earth, where more incoming solar energy is absorbed at the surface, the same mixing generates a vertical difference as well.

Importantly, this only works when there is enough vertical movement and when the process is adiabatic. On Earth, this applies in the Troposphere but as we get up to the Stratosphere, these conditions breakdown. As the air thins, convection driving vertical movment drops right off, and as the atmosphere thins, radiation to space becomes a powerful factor, so things are no longer adiabatic. With substantial radiation loss to space, this trumps the weak Lapse Rate driver of circulation. So the temperature profile of the Troposphere is dominated by the Lapse Rate, but the temperature profile of the Stratosphere is dominated by radiative effects.

So in summary. You are right about there being a strong vertical heat pumping system but you are incorrect about the mechanism that drives it. Importantly, this mechanism is a heat distribution system. It is always working to balance amounts of energy at different altitudes to maintain a vertical temperature profile. So if energy is being added to the system at different altitudes from the Sun or tiny amounts from geotherml heat (or on Earth human energy usage) and at the same time being lost to space at other altitudes as infrared radiation, the Lapse Rate pump is continually moving this incoming heat around, trying to establish the temperature profile. And the net effect, after lots of moving around, is that the incoming energy is transported to the location that it needs to be at to get out to space. But the temperature profile of the entire optically thick, convective region of the atmosphere will be maintained by the pump, not just some parts of it.

So for Venus, where absorption and emission of radiation both largely happen at higher altitude, none the less the Lapse Rate pump will still ensure that lower levels in the atmosphere are hot enough to maintain the temperature profile.

So to a basic point, and the link you gave to the hockeyschtick site is an example of this.

There are a number of climate denier sites that make this sort of argument, with dubious thermodynamics, that the existence of the Lapse Rate in some way invalidates the Greenhouse Effect. The 'Venus isn't hot because of the GH Effect, it is hot because of the Lapse Rate' type arguments. What they all uniformly don't get is something simple.

The Lapse Rate is a part of the Greenhouse Effect!

There are 3 processes that work together to create the GH Effect.

1. Radiative Balance. The Earth has to radiate enough energy to space to balance the energy arriving from the Sun. If it doesn't radiate enough, heat builds up and everything fries, radiate too much and everything freezes. So 'the Earth' needs to be warm enough to generate the right amount of radiation to space. Too little and it warms until its right. Too much and it cools until it is right. Radiative Balance is always adjusting the temperature of 'the Earth' to keep it where it needs to be to match the flows.

Notice I have said 'the Earth'. Because actually it isn't the Earth, it is that part of the Earth where the radiation to space originates from. Radiation doesn't originate from 1000 meters down in the ocean for example. So Radiation originates from 'somewhere'. And Radiative Balance acts to manage the temperature of the 'somewhere'. Balance defines what that emission temperature is, but not where it comes from.

2. The presence or absence of GH gases in the atmosphere determines what altitude radiation to space originates from. More GH gases means it originates from hgher in the atmosphere. And if there were no GH gases present, then it would originate from the surface. GH Gases determine where the emission temperature is set by Radiative Balance.

For the Earth that is around 5 km up and the temperature is around -18 C. For Venus that is over 50 km up and -80 - -90 C. And if the amount of GH gases is changed, then the altitude changes. So if we added enough GH gases to raise the average emission altitude for the Earth from 5 km to 6 km, then the 6km level would then be driven to an average of -18 C by Radiative Balance.

3. Then the presence of the Lapse Rate pump re-balances the vertical temperature profile around the temperature at the average emission level. Because importantly, the Lapse Rate defines relative temperatures vs altitude, not absolute temperatures. It is Radiative Balance that sets that and the GH gases determine where. The Lapse Rate then drives the average temperature of the rest of the atmosphere column to fall into line with that.

So in my example, if GH gases increased the emissions altitude by 1 km, then that level would warm to an average of -18 C, and the Lapse Rate pump would then drive matching temperature changes through the rest of the air column. Including the surface. If the actual value of the Lapse Rate remained constant* (at -6.5 C/km), then adding enough GH gases to raise the emission altitude by 1 km would result in all parts of the air column warming by 6.5 C right up to the limits where the Lapse Rate pump works.

So the surface gets warmed because the upper atmosphere has to warm and atmospheric mixing propagates that up and down.

The Lapse Rate doesn't disprove the GH Effect. It is a part of it.

Sites like hockeyschtick, with their dodgy understanding, don't get this and end up spreading mis-information.

* Actually the Lapse Rate will change. In a warmer would there will be more evaporation and condensation. So the contribution from evaporation and condensation in determining the actual value of the Lapse Rate will be more important and the Lapse Rate will fall a little. This is called the Lapse Rate Feedback, it is a negative feedback, and offsets a little of the warming from more GH gases.

The gas equasion pV=nRT when stated as pV=constant does not define an adiabatic process. Ignoring any gravitational field, the equation is pVγ=constant where γ=Cp/Cv which for air =7/5. The reason for this is because the specific heat capacity at constant pressure (Cp) is not equal to the specific heat capacity at constant volume (Cv). As a result an adiabatic process changing p and V does involve a change in temperature.

Mind, I don't believe this is, as Mike Hillis @146 asserts, something a high school chemistry teacher would be immediately familiar with. And it is certainly far less worthy of criticism than the assertion Mike Hillis continues with @146:-

"pV = nRT says if you increase PV, the T goes up even though you have not added heat. The work done to change the parcel's elevation and raise or lower the PV is uneven solar heating of the atmosphere."

Firstly, pV=nRT says nothing about added heat or not adding heat. Secondly, applying work to a parcel of air says there is added heat, so such a process cannot be adiabatic. (While the potential energy change could be construed conceptually as outside the boundary of the system under consideration, raising or lowering p or V cannot.)

What is so odd about the position presented by Mike Hillis is that he is proposing what he describes as a Katabatic process which is a phenomenon born of the convection process and cooling at altitude. Yet Mike Hillis uses it to explain warming at altitude, the exact opposite to the convection process. Even the mash-up account he appears to be basing his nonsense on (Nikolov and Zeller's 2011 conference poster linked @122 above) and which overplays its use of the convection process still uses it in its usual direction. So I struggle to see where Mike Hillis is coming from.

Put very simply, any vertical movement of air in any atmosphere either takes heat from a higher altitude or adds it to a lower one. Is there vertical movement in an atmosphere? Of course. Must work be done to move the air up or down? Oh course, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is there is vertical movement. The fact that there is vertical movement proves that heat is being pumped downward. Even brownian motion does it.

The big question not answered here is Jupiter. How can there be a greenhouse effect on Jupiter when its atmosphere is made of H2? Answer, there isn't. The same thing happens on Jupiter as happens on Venus.

Venus' atmosphere is 93 bars. If you descend into Jupiter's atmosphere to a level where the density is 93 bars, the temperature is around 450 K according to

The Ideal Gas Law doesn't describe a process. It is a state law, so it describes a fixed state. Other things need to be considered to determine how and why the state changes. But the Ideal Gas Law will then describe the new state after a change.

So better to say that nRT is a constant if mass doesn't change and internal energy doesn't change. T isn't a measure of the total internal energy of a collection of molecules. It is a measure of the translational kinetic energy of those molecules.

They also have energy in rotational motion, internal vibrations, and potentially electron energy levels. Also variations in potential energy of the molecules as they move closer or farther apart. Gravity is one source of potential energy change as objects move apart or together. Electro-magnetic forcs produce similar. So too inter-molecular forces such as Van Der Waals forces. Then Quantum Mechanics also impacts this hugely, constraining possibilities.

So Specific Heat Capacity, measured at constant Pressure, or constant Volume, is essentially posing/answering the question 'how much added energy manifests as increases in molecular translational kinetic energy - temperature - as opposed to increases in other modes of energy storage."

So what is the basis for your statement that includes Cp/Cv. "As a result an adiabatic process changing p and V does involve a change in temperature."?

How are you determining that the total change in all internal energy forms - translational, rotational, vibrational, electron energy level, etc. - will result in a matching changes in only the translational component of energy - temperature.

Mike Hillis @147:"Yup. Only the sun can change the total heat content of the atmosphere."

OK, let’s try to figure out the expected consequences of that:As you know, Venus is closer to the sun than the Earth is (108.2 vs. 149.6 million km), but also has a much higher albedo (77% vs. 30.6% according to NASA’s fact sheet). When combining these two facts we find that each m2 of Venus (mostly its cloud tops) absorbs less than 2/3 as much solar energy as the Earth does.So, if the total heat content in an atmosphere with a certain mass and composition is determined only by the amount of absorbed sunlight, we should expect the average temperature of Venus’ atmosphere as a whole – top to bottom – to be lower than the Earth’s, right?

Well, I tried to calculate a "mass-weighted" average temperature for both atmospheres based on the temperature and pressure at different altitudes.The result for Earth was -22oC and for Venus.....+354oC !

Any adiabatic process can obviously be ruled out as an explanation for this, as the very cold but very thin upper layers of Venus’ atmosphere have way too little heat capacity to "compensate" for the heat in the much hotter and denser lower layers. Actually, when I in my calculation lowered the temperature to absolute zero above 30 km, it only reduced the average for the entire atmosphere to +309oC !

And again: The spectrum of outgoing IR measured by the Venera probe reveals very clearly that the high temperature isn’t caused by any kind of internal heat source, but the simple fact that almost all the heat from the surface and lower atmosphere is prevented from escaping directly to space.

"Put very simply, any vertical movement of air in any atmosphere either takes heat from a higher altitude or adds it to a lower one."

This statement is untrue Mike. Vertical movement of air downwards transfers heat, energy, downwards since the energy content of the moving parcel of air moves down with it. And a parcel of air moving upwards transfers heat, energy upwards.

So any vertical movement does move heat, but not all in the same direction. So any net movement of heat depends on the difference between thee two flows. And if the net of the two flows is zero, there is no effective flow.

What determines whether the net heat flow is up or down? Whether the vertical temperature profile matches the Lapse Rate. If the upper air is too warm, net flow of heat is downward, cooling the upper level and warming the lower. If the lower air is too warm it is a net upward heat flow, cooling the lower level and warming the upper level.

In near adiabatic conditions vertical air movement always generates a lapse rate.

Think about the logic of your idea that movement in either direction produces downward heat flow. If that we true, then heat would just continually build up and up in the lower level. Without radiation to provide an alternative means of loosing heat, the lower level would become impossibly hot, not merely 500 C or so.

As to your digression to Jupiter, vertical movement again explains the profile. If the depths of Jupiters atmosphere are optically thick, or on the case of Jupiter there are large quantities of clouds, then the adiabatic condition is met and a Lapse Rate can be created. There is no disparity.

And with clouds present, Jupiter will have a greenhouse effect to some extent. On the graph you linked to, note the clouds of different materials in the lower atmosphere, all contributing to a GH effect. Note also that some of the clouds are water, so there will also be water as vapour present - more GH effect.

Additionally, with some nitrogen present, there may be some GH type absorption and emission produced. This is due to what is known as 'collisionally induced absorption'. Molecules that aren't normally absorbers of IR radiation such as Nitrogen (N2) and Hydrogen (H2) can become transient absorbers and emitters during the finite time when they are colliding. This needs high densities and or low temperatures to make this possible, maximising the number and duration of collisions. So collisions between Nitrogen molecules on Titan for example allow N2 to create a GH Effect. And it has been theorised that collisions between N2 and H2 in the early atmosphere of the Earth may have contributed to the GH Effect then.

You might find this article interesting, discussing the structure of planetary atmospheres and the GH effect. Notice how Jupiter (and Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) all have lapse rates in their tropospheres.

Note also the discussion of likely gases in their atmospheres, including Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulphide, both GH gases.

And consider something else. A GH Effect doen't have to just depend on incoming sunlight. Any heat source that can add significant amounts of energy into an atmosphere which is optically thick in the infra-red and thus capable of being roughly adiabatic will produce a GH effect.

So in the case of the gas giants, they do have an internal GH effect because of clouds and GH gases, changing their inner tempeature due to the fact that they produce large amounts of heat internally. Whereas for the inner planets, internal heat is minimal but solar is significant - the heat source doesn't matter. So of all the planets, Mars has the least GH effect because:

"The big question not answered here is Jupiter. How can there be a greenhouse effect on Jupiter when its atmosphere is made of H2? Answer, there isn't."

Ignoring for a moment the high cloud in the Jupiter atmosphere (which also generates a greenhouse effect), Jupiter's atmosphere contains 3000 ppmv of methane, 260 ppmv of ammonia, 6 ppmv of ethane, and 4 ppmv of water, all of which are greenhouse gases. The later two may be ignored, but the 3000 ppmv of methane and 260 ppmv of ammonia mean Jupiter's atmosphere is optically thicker for infra red radiation than is the Earth's. Specifically, at 1 bar atmospheric pressure, the infrared optical depth of the Earth's atmosphere is 1.9, while on Jupiter it is 6.3 (τ0 on Table 1 here). That in turn means the effective altitude of radiation to space for Jupiter (ie, the altitude where the optical depth equals 1) is closer to the tropopause for Jupiter (optical depth = 0.064) than it is for Earth (optical depth = 0.050).

I do not understand how energy can be transferred from a colder upper layer in the atmosphere to a warmer lower atmosphere. It seems to me a contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.

The ocean forms a thermocline where circulation is restricted because the energy enters primarily from the top. I htought that the energy to circulate the atmosphere (even on Venus) comes from the sunlight absorbed by the surface and then transferred upward.

I have never an taken atmospheric science class so it may be some basic understanding that I lack. Can you provide a link that explains better how the lapse rate is maintained? I read the Wikipedia lapse rate article but I only understood what the lapse rate is and not how it is maintained in the atmosphere. I did not find much helpful on Google, but I do not know what to look for.

Vertical movement of air downwards transfers heat, energy, downwards since the energy content of the moving parcel of air moves down with it. And a parcel of air moving upwards transfers heat, energy upwards.

Glenn's statement applies to instantaneous transfer, not time-averaged. Energy content is a property of mass. If you move that mass in any direction, the energy it contains is moved with it. Upward movement of air is always moving energy upward; downward movement of air is always moving energy downwards. The exact vertical thermal energy flux is (heat content)*(vertical velocity). It does not matter - instantaneously - how the temperature of that air relates to air above it, below it, or around it. The simple movement of air moves energy.

Averaged over time, net mass transfer is zero (otherwise you'd create a vaccuum somewhere and an excess of air somewhere else), but net energy transfer is not. Net energy transfer depends on whether the upward moving air is - on average - warmer or colder than downward moving air.

This principle is actually used to measure the rate of sensible heat (thermal energy) transfer in the atmosphere, using a method called eddy covariance. The exact same method can be used to measure water vapour flux or CO2 flux (or any other measurable property), by using the commbination of humidity or CO2 concentration and vertical velocity. Water vapour flux is often used to determine surface evaporation, and vertical CO2 flux tells you about surface respiration/phiotosynthesis rates.

The dry adiabatic lapse rate applies when vertical movement of air occurs ("parcels") without any phase change of water (condensation, evapoartion, or sublimation). It is the direct result of the vertical pressure gradient.

The wet adiabatic lapse rate is like the dry - but water is changing phase so energy is being released to thermal energy in proportion to the latent heat of vaporization (or sublimation). It is most commonly seen in rising air with condensation (cloud formation), and results in a much smaller decrease in temperature with increasing height. Just how much less depends on temperature, through the saturation humidity vs. temperature realtionship.

The environmental lapse rate is simply the current observed relationship between temperature and height. There is a global average, but the local value varies widely depending on meteorological and climatological factors. It will only equal the dry or wet adiabatic lapse rates by pure conincidence. It is a blend of the adiabatic processes plus every other factor that affects vertical temperature and energy transfer.

The is simply not true if you are talking direct heating, and you do not include oceans or land as part of the atmosphere. Most of the heating of the atmosphere comes from the surface, where most of the solar radiation is absorbed.

The temperature structure of the stratosphere is driven by absorption of solar radiation (mainly UV), but the troposphere is dominated by energy gains from the surface in three forms:

thermal energy gains from the surface

latent heat contained in water vapour (changed from liquid to vapour at the surface - i.e. evaporation - and changed from vapour to liquid in the atmsphere - i.e., cloud formation).

infrared radiation emitted from the surface and absorbed in the atmosphere.

You can argue that all that energy ultimately came from the sun, but it reaches the atmosphere indirectly. Ignoring that indirect path is not a particularly good idea, especially in a discussion of lapse rates, adiabatic processes, and the greenhouse effect.

Two points. Your first one about heat transfer from cold to hot is referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. And this can be a bit confusing. Firstly, the 2nd Law refers to Net heat flow, based on all the energy flows between a hot and cold point. More importantly, the 2nd Law applies to a closed system. It does not apply to an open system. So if we think of the system and ask what the boundaries are, they need to preclude flows from outside the boundary. The atmosphere isn't that, there are flows from the surface, flows in from the Sun, flows out to deep space, and even miniscule flows in from other stars and deep space.

Next, there are huge differences between the ocean and the atmosphere. Firstly, water is essentially imcompressible. So although pressure can increase hugely at depth very little actual compression occurs. So the density of parcels of water in the ocean doesn't vary by much; so much so that even changes in the salinity of sea water is a significant contributor to relativedensity change. And it is density differences that drives vertical convective movement.

The atmosphere on the other hand has huge density changes with altitude, with pressure. As a consequence, vertical movement is much easier, and any tendency to stratification is easily disrupted. Also the impact of coriolis forces is more profound. Since air velocities are much higher than ocean current velocities, change in location happens much faster, both horizontally and vertically. So more Coriolis force generated turbulence and vorticity effects. Next with its much lower density air is more easily able to move vertically since it takes much less energy to move a parcel of air vertically than the same size parcel of water. Horizontal air movements can more easily trigger vertical air movements , not just horizontal movements that infill the volume previously occupied. So turbulence and mixing can happen more easily.

So vertical movement is much easier. In the case of bottom heating which is how most heat flows into the Earths atmosphere, convection due to heating is easy to understand. However, even with top heating, which is more like what happens on Venus, mixing can still generate vertical movement. And some of the light from the Sun does penetrate to reasonable depth in Venus, enough to create some bottom driven convection.

Also, wind speeds on Venus are higher than on Earth, up to 700 km/hr in the mid levels. More speed, more turbulence.

So as long as there is anything that can generate reasonable vertical movements, in an optically thick, adiabatic situation, the Lapse Rate engine keeps running.

These movements move heat up and down to establish and maintain that gradient, even in the presence of heat additions into the atmosphere from incoming sunlight, internal heat emissions from the planet etc. at any altitude.

Since emissions to space are dependent on optical thickness, emission to space will originate from that altitude where the atmosphere, of whatever planet, is transitioning to being optically thin.

For reasons of radiative balance the temperature at that level will tend towards the emission temperature needed to maintain radiative balance.

Vertical air movements will balance atmospheric temperatures around that balance level, producing the GH effect.

This occurs on Venus, Earth, modestly on Mars, on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Titan as a starting list.

Glenn, this is slightly off-topic but when speaking of emission elevations and temperatures, and optical thickness, you must specify wavelength. On Earth, emission of 15 micron IR occurs at the top of the troposphere at cold temperatures, but 9, 10, or 11 micron IR for examples, are emitted to space from Earth's surface (if not blocked by cloud) at very warm temperatures.

Mike, actually not off-topic, just a more detailed exploration of the topic. You might find this interesting

This is the data from the HiTran spectroscopic database for the Spectral Intensity of CO2 vs wavelength.

This is the starting point for evaluating absorption/emission strength. As you can see the vertical scale is logarithmic. The roughly triangular shape of the graph either side of 15 on a logarithmic scale is the primary basis of the logarithmic nature of CO2 forcing.

So peaks either side of 10 are also visible, and a peak near 5. However they are 4 orders of magnitude weaker than 15.

However this is only part of the picture. There is also a process called Line Broadening which, particularly in the lower atmosphere, smears out each line substantially. Extend this to Venus or Jupiter like atmospheres and individual lines can actually be smeared across much of this graph. There is more on this here.

As a result the actual spectrum observed by satellites is a product of some complex stuff.

Here is one such satellite measurement, from 1969.

That spike at 15 micron, at the centre of the CO2 'notch', doesn't just come from the top of the troposphere. It actually comes from the upper stratosphere where temperatures are actually higher.

So yes, there is lots of wavelength specific detail. Most of the radiation from 9 to 11 is from the surface except near the centre of that where Ozone plays a role - that is just visible on the above graph as a dip starting at the right extreme.

However, at a broader level, dealing with averages across wavelengths, the broad picture I have painted is still valid.

I prefer a graph which shows actual flux, not log of intensity, to get a more accurate visual image of what's going on, and one which covers Earth's entire upwelling IR spectrum of 7 microns to 100, not one artificially cut off at 10 and 25 microns. In this case we see a CO2 band of IR emitting at 220 K but that the majority of Earth's IR radiates from near the 300 K Planck curve, which means it's not being absorbed by any greenhouse gases. Yes I do know about the 9.6 micron O3 band which also radiates from higher elevations and lower temperatures.

My graph is from Conrath et al 1970 - NASA used to host a non-pay-walled copy. To my knowledge this was the first time such a measurement was possible, from the Nimbus 3 satellite. This graph shows the corresponding planck curves. Figure 5 from the paper shows both theoretical and observed data from most of the pectrum, with a vertical displacement of one graph for clarity. Impressive agreement between theory and observation given it was 1969.

The cutoff above 25 micron is because that was the range of the instrument.

Regarding your graph, yep, that is a typical tropical profile.

Note how everything to the left of the CO2 notch, due to H2O Rotational absorption, is all substantially below the planck curve from the atmospheric window.

What is missing from this, since it is a clear sky simulation, is the effect of clouds. With clouds the curve sits significantly below the surface planck line across most of the spectrum. You can explore this here. at the Uni of Chicago - an online hosted copy of the Modtran simulator. You can select broad atmosphere profile, cloud type, gas concentrations and where you are looking from.

This is current gas composition, US Standard Atmosphere to be indicative of the entire planet, no clouds, looking down from 70km.

Here is the same set up but with a cumulus cloud base

As you can see, clouds modify the picture significantly. Here nothing is originating from the surface.

So with a reasonable proportion of the Earth cloud covered, on average, only a small percentage of surface radiation escapes directly from the surface.

An interesting exercise with the Chicago simulator is to select a configuration and progressively look down from lower and lower altitudes all the way to zero. Gives a sense of how high in the atmosphere different parts of the spectrum originate from.

This is a simulation of an atmosphere with 400,000 ppm. It isn't completely realistic since it still assumes a standard temperature profile, no extra water vapour and may not model continuum absorption, but as you can see, lots of extra effects and significantly less energy escaping to space..

Here's the famous Clough diagram showing the height of radiation of various bands. A major portion of the spectrum, from wave numbers 700 to 1300 waves/cm., are emitted from the surface. Plus a little more from 500 to 600. Come to think of it, it looks like Earth radiates from the surface in all but the tiny CO2 band from 600 to 700 and a little around ~300. Hmmmmm.

<Image data deleted>

Response:

[PS] Not sure what is going on here. You cannot embed an image. It has to be hosted somewhere else online. Try again.

The above image shows that most radiation to space from Earth comes from the troposphere, usually the lower troposphere (dotted line is the tropopause), except for a small band absorbed by CO2. The majority of upwelling IR is emitted to space by the surface itself with no absorption by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The chart assumes a cloud-free sky, and in real life there are clouds, it is true, but in your above description of cloud cover you said:

"So with a reasonable proportion of the Earth cloud covered, on average, only a small percentage of surface radiation escapes directly from the surface."

This is an under-exaggeration. A cursory look at a photo of Earth from interlunar space

Mike Hillis @175 and 176, the Clough diagram shows the spectral cooling rate induced by changes in atmospheric composition graphed by wave number and by altitude. It does not show where the radiation comes from. I have discussed it in greater detail here.

The linked photo, "Earth from interlunar space" shows visible light, only, and hence shows only reflected light, not thermal emessions. It is literally irrelevant as evidence regarding the altitude from which most radiation comes.

Finally, your argument @173 that the majority of radiation to space comes from the surface betrays a misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works. Specifically, the greenhouse effectg occurs because some radiation from the surface is absorbed in the atmosphere, with radiation from the absorbing layers to space being less intense than the surface radiation because the absorbing layers are cooler. If the radiation from the CO2 band were as intense as that from the surface, there would be no greenhouse effect, yet you appear to be pointing to the reduced intensity in that band as proof that there is no greenhouse effect. Rhetorically that is something like pointing to a satellite photo of the Earth to prove that the Earth is flat.

Consider your graph from 173:

A key feature of the graph is that the total area under the graph equals the radiation to space in W/m^2. Had the radiation in the CO2 absorption band been as intense as that from the surface, there would have been no greenhouse effect as noted. Because it is very much less intense, however, the surface radiation must be stronger to radiate the same amount of energy as would be radiated through an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases. Ergo, the surface must be warmer to radiate the same amount of energy. Hence the presence of greenhouse gases results in the surface being warmer when incoming solar and outgoing IR radiation approach equilibrium.

In your first paragraph you claim that the spectral cooling rate at various altitudes does not show the altitude from which the radiation from various parts of the spectrum emits. Really? Because that is exactly what it shows, and as far as I can tell, it's the only thing it shows.

In your second paragraph, regarding my linked photo, "Earth from interlunar space," it shows cloud cover and is entirely relevant to the discussion I was having with Glenn because he exaggerated the extent of Earth's cloud cover. Nobody is using it as evidence of altitude of emissions, and you should not enter a conversation unless you take the time to understand what the 2 other parties are discussing. Clouds, being liquid droplets and not gas, are black bodies that block all wavelengths of upwelling IR and emit blackbody radiation from their tops. Being black bodies, the cloud tops can be regarded as new "surfaces" like the terestrial surface, and as such are entirely relevant in discussions of altitude of emissions, since cloud tops can be at various altitudes, although I was not representing them as such. I was only showing that cloud cover was 30 or 40 percent of the globe, not some larger amount as Glenn implied. And you should look up the word "literally" in a dictionary because you use it wrong.

As for the third paragraph, if you do not know that the atmosphere is almost 100% transparent or largely transparent to a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR, most importantly the large band from 8 to 13 microns known to IR astronomers as the N band, which means they are not absorbed by any greenhouse gases at all and play no role in a greenhouse effect, then I would suggest you not enter scientific discussions on this level until you study the subject. I would like to quote you from another thread, in a comment you made to me recently, which by the way has no discernible meaning:

IR radiation from the other altitudes absorbed at a given frequency; and

Shortwave radiation absorbed at a given frequency.

Changes in the spectral cooling rate can be due to changes to any of the above. For example, the warming trend (grey shades) at 1100 cm^-1 from approximatley 8 to 28 km are primarilly due to an increase in UV-A and UV-B penetrating to that altitude due to the reduced stratospheric ozone levels. Interpreting it as simply a function of IR emissions to space is wrong. Even the third bulleted factor specified above is not IR radiation to space, but IR radiation in any direction, including downward. When you treat the diagram as being only a function of that one value, and indeed, only of the IR radiation to space, you merely show your ignorance.

2) Allowing that you used the photo to show cloud cover, it only shows the cloud cover over a quarter of the Earth at one point of time. That is no basis from which to infer typical cloud cover. If you instead look to satellite surveys of cloud cover, you see that on average 66% of the Earth is covered by cloud, not 30-40% as you claim:

Even that does not tell you the level of the cloud. Because IR emissions are dependent on temperature, and temperature is a function of altitude, an IR spectrum over cloud cover can tell you the cloud height, and hence the level of emissions. In contrast, the intensity of reflected light tells you nothing about the temperature of the object from which it reflects, and therefore nothing about the altitude from which it is reflected without the use of trignometry to determine distance. Needless to say a single 2D photo does not include that information. Ergo, the photo does not tell you the altitude from which the IR radiation originated on any part of the picture. Now either you knew these facts, and were literally trying to decieve, or again your argument is based on massive ignorance.

3) You site the N-band of 8-13 microns as being largely transparent to IR, ie, a total of 5 microns of the 0.7 - 1000 micron range of IR radiation. That is, it represents 0.5% of the IR spectrum. It is less than a third of the 4-20 micron range typically detected by satellite instruments. And that 8-13 micron range includes the absorption band of ozone, in which the majority of radiation to space comes from the stratosphere. Your claim that "the atmosphere is almost 100% transparent or largely transparent to a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR" is not even close:

All this, however, is beside the point. If an planet existed with an atmosphere that absorbed 100% of IR in a narrow band with no emission to space, it would mean 100% of IR radiation from that planet would be from the surface. The total IR to space from that planet would still result in less power radiated to space, given the surface temperature of the planet, than would be the case with no atmosphere. Given that total energy in from insolation must match total energy leaving the planet for a stable temperature to exist, that means the surface temperature of the planet must be higher than it would be with no atmosphere. In contrast, a planet with an atmosphere having the same pressure profile but absorbing no IR radiation would not cause the IR to space to be less than the total radiated from the surface, and therefore would not result in an increase in surface temperature at quasi equilibrium.

You have been so eager to accuse me of invincible ignorance that you have merely demonstrated your own.

"Global total cloud amount (Fig. 1) is about 0.68 (±0.03) when considering clouds with optical depth > 0.1 (retrieval sensitivity of ISCCP during day, PATMOS-x, MODIS-ST, AIRS-LMD, HIRSNOAA, TOVS Path-B, and CALIPSO-GOCCP; cloud detection of MODIS-CE and MISR is slightly less sensitive over land). This value increases to about 0.73 when including subvisible cirrus (CALIPSO-ST) and decreases to about 0.56 for clouds with optical depth > 2 (POLDER). The optimal estimation method of ATSR-GRAPE leads to a slight underestimation (0.62), because only clouds with small uncertainty are reported (based on a single cloud layer model)."

You site the N-band of 8-13 microns as being largely transparent to IR, ie, a total of 5 microns of the 0.7 - 1000 micron range of IR radiation. That is, it represents 0.5% of the IR spectrum. It is less than a third of the 4-20 micron range typically detected by satellite instruments. And that 8-13 micron range includes the absorption band of ozone,

This is the rambling of a non-scientist intending to deceive the readers. The entire 0.7 - 1000 micron range? Really? When we are talking about Earth's upwelling IR? And really, the 4 - 20 micron range detected by satellite instruments? Earth doesn't even emit 4 microns. And dividing up these absurd ranges of wavelengths as if the wavelengths all had equal amplitudes. Unbelievable. And claiming the 8-13 micron range, which presents a major chunk of Earth's Planck curve, and includes the peak wavelength according to Wein's law, is not really transparent because of the trivial 9.6 micron O3 absorption band? This sort of argument makes me want to quote a 1970's bumper sticker:

If you can't blind 'em with science, baffle them with BS

And a quote from your own post to me in this thread:

"Don't be a fool"

I'm done with you Tom. I'm not going to be reading any more of your comments from now on.

Response:

[RH] You are going to have to address the points where Tom has shown you in clear error. You don't get to unilaterally abandon a line of discussion once you've been shown to be wrong.

"As for the third paragraph, if you do not know that the atmosphere is almost 100% transparent or largely transparent to a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR, most importantly the large band from 8 to 13 microns known to IR astronomers as the N band, which means they are not absorbed by any greenhouse gases at all and play no role in a greenhouse effect, then I would suggest you not enter scientific discussions on this level until you study the subject."

(My emphasis)

I have not challenged the claim that the majority of energy radiated from Earth to space comes from the surface because I do not know it is false. Nor do I know it to be true, though I do know it is irrelevant to the debate. But when you make the damn fool claim that the majority of IR wavelengths are "transparent or largely transparent", I challenged you because it was transparently false. Your response it to claim that you wrote something other than what you actually wrote. Do the decent thing and accept that you mispoke; or confirm that you are deceitful as well as a fool.

And while we are on the topic of your being a fool, we have this prime example:

"Earth doesn't even emit 4 microns."

A fool not simply because you are wrong, but because you make this claim despite the evidence in the chart I showed, where the blue line is Earth's IR spectrum and the lowest wavelength of emissions is clearly seen to be less than 4 microns. But as you have demonstrated repeately on this thread, you never let evidence that would rebut your ideas enter your consciousness, so why would you start now.

The usual graphic of the Earth's radiative balance (presented in-thread here @167) suggests that the surface IR emissions to space represent 12% of the total IR at 40wm^-2. Mind, Costa & Shine (2012) point to this being a rather "ad hoc"value and model the clear sky value as being 66Wm^-2 and revise the true global average down from 40WM^-2 to 20Wm^-2 (+/-20%). They conclude "This indicates that less than one-tenth of the Outgoing Longwave Radiation originates directly from the surface."

If the words of Mike Hillis are taken as his position on this %OLR to space, @176 he tells us "The majority of upwelling IR is emitted to space by the surface itself with no absorption by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" which is quite a staggering assertion. He is asserting the surface IR flux to space is in excess of 120Wm^-2 but presents no evidence in support. Rather we are treated to empty assertiveness.

I wouldn’t say that Mike’s claim is very wrong here. According to this blackbody calculator, a surface at 288 K emits only about 1 % of its total radiation at wavelengths between 3 and 5 µm, so I think it’s safe to say that absorption in that part of the spectrum is pretty insignificant for the greenhouse effect on Earth, though important on Venus.

Mike Hillis@178:"....if you do not know that the atmosphere is almost 100% transparent or largely transparent to a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR...."

Let’s compare the IR flow from the surface to that escaping to space in the chart posted by Bob Loblaw in @167.A simple calculation shows at the latter (239 W/m2) is about 60 % of the former (396 W/m2), so by a simplistic glass greenhouse analogy one could claim that 60 % of the "roof" is open. That’s wrong because the atmospheric greenhouse effect both absorbs and reemits in accordance with the local temperature. As a result, the heat loss to space isn’t reduced to zero in any part of the IR spectrum. Consequently, you could have 100 % absorption in the entire spectrum and still have a more or less "open" greenhouse roof because the altitude of heat loss is just as important as the optical depth of the atmosphere. So, claiming that the atmosphere is largely or almost 100 % transparent to a majority of upwelling IR when the heat loss to space is reduced by 40 % is definitely wrong!Imagine an Earth with present day surface temperature (288 K) and lapse rate (6.5 K/km) with 100 % cloud cover, the cloud tops 1 km above the surface and no greenhouse gases above them. That atmosphere would be virtually 100 % opaque to IR from the surface, but would that create a strong greenhouse effect? No, because the outgoing IR would only be reduced by 40 W/m2, not 157 W/m2 as in the chart in @167.Regarding the 8 to 13 µm range, water vapour does absorb some radiation in that part of the spectrum, but pretty weakly. The absorption spectrum of water vapour is quit "messy", with a broad band from about 5 to 8 µm, and lots of very narrow, more or less widely spaced bands after that. The peaks of these narrow bands are at their lowest near 10 µm, but get progressively higher with longer wavelengths. So, much of the radiation escaping to space in the 8 to 13 µm range originates from low level water vapour (and stratospheric ozone), but since this water vapour isn’t much colder than the surface, it has a very minor impact on the greenhouse effect.

1) Again I refer you to the claim I was actually criticizing, ie, that "a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR" were transparent to, or largely transparent to IR radiation. For a wavelength to fall into that category, and therefore be a relevant wavelength for assessing the claim, it is sufficient that it be a wavelength that emits IR radiation from the surface. However, while the 3-5 micron band is only responsible for % of all radiation from a source at 288 K, the 8-13 micron window that Mike Hillis would have us focus on is only responsible for 9.9%. That compares to 3.8% for the 4-8 micron band, and 9% for the 13-20 micron bands he would have us ignore. Even that comparison falsely favours his case in that he treats the 9.2-10 micron band, heavilly absorbed by O3 and accounting for 1.7% of emmissions at 288 K, as being essentially transparent.

The simply fact is that no matter what end limit I used, the total irradiance from that wavelength is trivial if you concentrate on just that wavelenght. Thus total emission from 7.6-8.6 microns (chosen because it brackets the wavelength of peak emission) represents just 1.8% of total emissions, and hence can be considered trivial. Had he focused just on the low emissions at 4 microns, he would have been cherry picking the edge of a broad band specified (4-20 microns). Of course, he did not even do that, but wrongly claimed zero emissions at 4 microns.

So, in short, he attempted to distract from rather than properly address my criticism by focusing on an edge value rather than the full band, pretended his claim was other than it actually was, and still got the facts wrong. I would say that qualifies as "very wrong", though those were not my words.

2) The point in your final paragraph is a very good one. There is reason earth bound IR telesopes are located at the top of tall mountains, or flown in balloons or planes (something not commented on by deniers when they trot out the "atmospheric window". The impact of water vapour at low levels in that window can be seen from this spectrum of downwelling IR radiation from Nauru, compared to that from Barrow Alaska, where cold weather has condensed most of the water vapour from the atmosphere:

Tom @187:We are pretty much in agreement, but I want to point out a small error in your last post.In your calculation of the window radiation (8-13 µm) you seem to have compared the band radiance with the radiant emittance. Note that the unit of the former is W/m2/sr, while the latter is W/m2, without the steradians at the end.

The correct comparison would be band radiance and radiance (the second row in the right column of the Blackbody Calculator). That increases the window fraction of the radiation from 9.9 to 31.2 %. Your conclusion is of course still true, as 68.8 % of the radiation comes from outside the window region, most of it strongly absorbed by the atmosphere, and there is also some absorption within the window itself, mainly by water vapour and ozone.

BTW, I was a little puzzled by the dip near 15 µm in Barrow, until I realised that it probably is the result of a temperature inversion. That part of the spectrum is so strongly absorbed by CO2 that the lower few metres of air is able to block the radiation from the warmer air higher up.

Spectroscopy can obviously tell us a lot about the conditions in an atmosphere. No wonder it’s the most important tool in astrophysics!

"the atmosphere is almost 100% transparent or largely transparent to a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR"

Which is true, because the section from 8 to 13 is between 95% and 100% transparent, the section from 17 to 100 is largely transparent (let's say around 50% on average. If glass were 50% transparent you'd call it tinted) leaving only the CO2 band from 13 to 17. (The ozone band at 9.6 is not relevant because there is no O3 in the troposphere unless there was alightning storn or somebody hired ToM Curtis to do the electrical work.

Tom quoted me as making

"the damn fool claim that the majority of IR wavelengths are transparent or largely transparent"

Note his lack of the word "upwelling" and his representing that I was talking about the entire IR spectrum from 700 nanometers to 1 mm, almost all of which is utterly not radiated by Earth.

This is the argument style of a BS artist, plain and simple. He knew I said upwelling, but went on to say something utterly different, fully aware of what he was doing.

Are you saying that when you wrote "the atmosphere is almost 100% transparent or largely transparent to a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR" @178, you meant to say "the troposphere is almost 100% transparent or largely transparent to a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR"? [snip].

I also wonder where you base your assertion that the atmosphere (or are we talking 'troposphere' again, although it doesn't matter a jot) is "largely transparent (let's say around 50% on average)" for IR wavelengths between 17 and 100 microns. The graphic below is a reasonably common representation of atmospheric IR absorption and shows rather an absence of transmission all the way up to 70 mocrons. (Elsewhere you can find similar graphics showing this zero transmission continues well beyond 1,000 microns.)

Note also this graphic shows that the level of "upwelling" IR at 4 microns does exceed the level of "upwelling" IR at 100 microns, the latter a wavelength you feel important enough to feature in you analysis. Is there a reason why you are so emphatic that "it doesn't" feature at 4 microns? [snip].

Response:

[GT] Hostile tone deleted.

Everyone, time to dial it down and call a halt to the name calling in any form.

Any future posts from anyone guilty of breaches of civility will be deleted.

Mike Hillis @190:"....because the section from 8 to 13 is between 95% and 100% transparent...."

Take a look at the downwelling radiation at Nauru in @187.This proves that water vapour can emit radiation between 10 and 13 µm and also between 8 and 9.4 µm. The almost total lack of radiation in Barrow at these wavelengths was caused by an almost total lack of water vapour as the temperature there was lower than -30oC.

From the Wikipedia article about Kirchhoff's law:"For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity."

Which means that if water vapour can emit at these wavelengths mentioned above, it can also absorb at them, although that absorption is pretty weak compared to other parts of the spectrum.Regarding the rest of the relevant part of the spectrum – the chart posted by MA Rodger clearly shows that you are wrong about your "50% transparency" claim.

Ignoring the impact of ozone, it is true that the zone between 8 and 13 microns absorbs typically less than 10% of upwelling radiation from the surface as shown in the following diagram:

But radiation can be not only absorbed, but also scattered; and once absorption and scattering are included it is definitely not the case that the window is 95-100% transparent:

The degree of scattering varies by location, but for tropical regions, and not including scattering by salt or dust, transmittance falls to a mean value of about 0.4 (calculated from Modtran tropical clear sky). The effect of the back scatter plus reemittance are clearly seen in the Nauru downwelling radiation spectrum @187 above. In contrast, for very cold, or very high regions (hence with very little H2O) scattering and absorption falls to near zero in that window. Given that these only account for a small percentage of the Earth's surface, however, a transmittance even in the window of 0.8 is optimistic.

2) "the section from 17 to 100 is largely transparent (let's say around 50% on average"

Not even close. In fact so far from the truth it is difficult to distinguish from bald face lying:

The best that can be said for Mike Hillis claim is that he is mistaking emission from H2O in the atmosphere for emission from the surface. The former results in radiation in those wavelengths of about 50% of the surface expected radiation - but that is only because it is radiated from a higher, and colder location by H2O. That, of course, means radiation in those wavelengths generate a greenhouse effect.

3) "If glass were 50% transparent you'd call it tinted"

Possibly, but the original claim was "the atmosphere is almost 100% transparent or largely transparent to a majority of upwelling wavelengths of IR" and a glass that is 50% absorbing is not "largely transparent". Hillis claim re tinted glass is a transparent attempt to shift the goal posts.

4) "Note his lack of the word "upwelling" and his representing that I was talking about the entire IR spectrum from 700 nanometers to 1 mm, almost all of which is utterly not radiated by Earth"

Possibly more to the point, note the way Hillis avoids discussing the fact that I discusses to wavelength ranges, ie, the full IR spectrum and the more restricted range observed by IR satellites. That is because it was ambiguous what HIllis means by "upwelling".

The fact is that even at 0.7-0.8 microns,a 288 K black body, and hence also the Earth's surface, radiates energy (as can be checked on Spectral Calc). It certainly radiates at all wavelengths longer than that. Ergo, unless an intensity restriction is placed on what is considered to be an "upwelling wavelength", the entire IR spectrum has upwelling radiation from the Earth. If an intensity limit was intended, it should have been stated. The failure to prescribe it was Hillis fault, not my own.

Granted that if such an intensity limit has been stated, that would have cut of the higher and lower wavelengths. Except for tendentious limits, however, it would not have cut of the 4-20 micron range which I also discussed.

In all, Hillis [snip]... the faults in his presentation (ie, not being explicit about the wavelengths which he considered, and or explicitly stating a radiance threshold to be considered "upwelling").

[snip]

Response:

[GT] Insulting tone deleted.

The bitching has gone on long enough, irrespective of any ones views about who is at fault.

Everyone cease and desist immediately.

Any future comments containing any such tone or breaches of the code of conduct will be deleted. Stick to the science!

Upwelling radiation below 6 and above 30, for the purposes of a discussion about the Earth's greenhouse effect and the absorbtion of IR by its atmosphere, is trivial.

Also, the technologically defined end of the IR spectrum is around 350 um because waves around that length act less like photons and more and more like waves, according to Ian Glass p 27 of "Handbook of Infrared Astronomy"

"350 um is the wavelength where radio technologies such as superheterodyne receivers tend to be used rather than the optical-style infrared approach, and the radiation starts to be thought of as waves rather than photons"

I admit to thinking as an IR astronomer because most of my work in the field has been at Mauna Kea, which is high above much of Earth's water vapor, so I automatically didn't consider the difference when talking about the Q-band (17 - 24 micron) absorbing properties of the atmopshere at sea level, where much of the transmittance is brought down to a 20 or 40 %, while it remains a roughly flat 50% transmittance at Mauna Kea up to about 28. I will scan some charts now for the next post.

For all intents and purposes, transmittance in the N band on Mauna Kea is 100% or darn close to it. The reason we moved, first to Antarctica and then to Hubble, is due to the need to see things in the opaque bands, not because of any improvement in seeing in the N band, or even the Q band, really.

It will be most interesting to see some charts that demonstrate that "upwelling radiation below 6 and above 30, for the purposes of a discussion about the Earth's greenhouse effect and the absorbtion of IR by its atmosphere, is trivial," especially given that chart you linked to @173 (in this thread about Venus) that also shows the "trivial" effect of doubling trace gas CO2.

From an earlier comment you made "The ozone band at 9.6 is not relevant because there is no O3 in the troposphere".

Not true. Ozone measured at Mauna Loa for example fluctuates around 40 ppb. Tropospheric ozone is formed via photochemical reactions with a number of largely man-made atmospheric pollutants. See here.

If I plug a figure of 40 ppb forTropospheric Ozone into the Modtran calculator at U Chicago, and contrast that with 0 ppb, using a US Standard Atmosphere, the difference is 0.565 W/m2. Not in the same league as the forcing from doubling CO2 of 3.7 W/m2 but still not trivial -15%

This discussion has been mostly about Earth lately, so I thought it was time to return to our beautiful/hellish sister planet!

The chart below illustrates the point I made in @141 and in the last paragraph of @160:If the extreme temperature on Venus was caused by anykind of additional energy source rather than the atmosphere slowing down the heat loss to space, the red curve based on measurements outside the atmosphere would have been much closer to the black one.It’s hard to find a more crystal clear fingerprint of an extreme greenhouse effect in action than this!